Fox as "The Monster"

This may seem like a weird analogy at first, but it's the one that came to me as I think about the Fox-sponsored debate boycotts.

When we hear stories of brutality -- beating or killing a wife, abusing or killing children -- it's sometimes said, "What a MONSTER!!" We want to think a person who'd do such a thing is something other than human, something different from everybody else in the country, or the state, or the town or our workplace. Calling a brutal criminal a "monster" provides separation, makes the monster an anomaly, differentiates the monster and removes the monster from our own daily lives.

In fact though, the "monster" is often someone very much like a person we may know. Vicious criminals ARE human; terrible things happen behind closed doors, within our neighborhoods and beyond them. Some percentage of human beings (I won't speculate what percentage) has the potential to be 'inhuman' with other factors (poverty, hunger, drug or alcohol addiction, mental illness, for example). That has to be recognized, and it isn't recognized if we isolate the criminal as a "monster" rather than a person who represents elements that pervade our culture and need to be addressed on all levels.

Are you with me?

Okay. Fox News is a rightwing mouthpiece of the White House, an organization with an agenda from the top on down, and not an objective cable news network. No argument from me there. If I understand it correctly, a number of Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in debates that have Fox as sponsor or co-sponsor, either in order to protest the network, or to avoid being subjected to unfair treatment, or to damage Fox commercially. All other networks pass muster though, both cable and broadcast (and, it's unclear whether these candidates will now avoid interviews on Fox).

In my view, this makes Fox a "Monster," and lets all the other networks off the hook. It exonerates ABC, they of "Path to 911;" it excuses asshats like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck; it gives a star to all the many, many, "mainstream" news sources who repeated lie after lie after lie about both Al Gore and John Kerry, not to mention their misleading coverage of the war in Iraq from the start.

Does boycotting Fox teach other networks a lesson? Not unless the lesson is that as long as Fox is a Monster, they're safe as "mainstream" or even "fair."

Will boycotting Fox make Fox change their ways? Of course not.

Will boycotting Fox cause them to lose dollars? No -- they'll laugh all the way to the bank. It's no secret what Fox is; it's less known what all the other networks are.

Keith Olbermann and perhaps one or two others aside, the "mainstream media" spouts the same scripts as Fox does, in more subtle sheep's clothing. In some cases, the supposedly acceptable talking heads are even worse. We expect Sean Hannity to act like a jerk when he's interviewing General Clark, but even he hasn't risen to the level of Joe Scarborough attacking the General -- both directly and in references for over a week -- for "not wanting the good news to get out" and even "aiding and abetting the terrorists."

So I think it's too easy to cast Fox as the Monster. It's not what it does to Fox (nothing); it's what it does FOR the other networks.

they are not a reputable news organization.
don't watch em and don't patronize their advertisers.
In other words, ignore them and they will indeed go away.
it's the tyranny of ratings and free markets.. haha

Do you really think so, or were you being sarcastic?

P E R I O D

Ignoring them gives them credence. Candidates need to attack each lie the Faux Noise puts forth. The public needs to learn the Faux is the monster.

the only thing that keeps Faux afloat is ratings and advertising revenue.
As long as there's an audience stupid enough to watch and guests
so self-interested to appear on their shows... then there's viability ($$$)
for them to keep doing what they're doing. Personally I don't watch it
and if I see a TV on Faux in a public place I ask em to change the channel.
Others may boycott the advertisers. Others may go picket their stations
or do what they can to educate people that Faux is indeed not "news".

So yeah, if people do ignore Faux and it WILL go away. :-)
That's the nature of television.

It's not like we're going to stop with the Faux freaks.

:shrug:

NGU.

Then where would boycotts stop, and who would be hurt most by it? I think the Democrats themselves would be.

:eyes:

But thank you for your concern.

NGU.

They did a HORRIBLE job!!



I still remember the on-line gathering we had right'cheer at DU/P ~~

We were all in shock at how despicable their debate moderator Hume was.

And after the debate was over, they only had rTHUG guests reviewing how the candidates did with other rTHUG guests!! Nothing but bias, one-sided, pathetic, batshit crazy blabbering.

They aren't qualified to host a 2nd grade spelling bee.

and here's what I came up with:

I agree with you about Fox being the most extreme example, but by no means the exclusive one of RW propaganda in the media.

However, the first thing you do when you realize you're in a hole is to STOP DIGGING IT for them. I think that's what the refusal to participatein the FOX-sponsored debate gets our candidates. They've symbolically stopped digging, and most people wil percieve it as such.

Now, after you stop digging your own grave, and you've announed that's what you're doing, THEN you can talk about how to readjust participating in debates sponsored by a kinder, gentler, snake oil salesman.

How does this stop the digging? I think it enables plenty more shovels, you know?

and not cooperating with them gives our candidates more bargaining power in future negotiations with other parties. Indicating that you have the presence of mind to willingly walk away from a sitation that is not right from the outset is a powerful tool that other parties will pay attention to.

Whatever happened to League of Women Voters sponsoring the debates? And perhaps a university or college will step in? Who knows?

But the fact that we have now officially said NO to Fox, moves the debate debate ;-) further along than it was.

Is "or else we won't play" a powerful bargaining chip to use against other networks? Is it, first of all, a credible threat? Or, would actually boycotting more networks hurt the Democrats themselves much more than the networks?

We agree change is needed. I don't think this is going to do it.

And you don't do to the point of not playing at all, just enough to keep the other party interested.

I think this is where JE's experience as a "dirty trial lawyer" is coming in to play. It's not that he won't debate at all, rather he wants a more condusive atmosphere for the Democratic POV.

One of the first rules of negotiation is to never simply accept the first offer.

I'm curious. What would he hold out for that would create a better atmosphere for the Democratic POV, as you say?

I'd ask for something more like having control over who moderates, for example. Not FOX SNOOZE Hairpiece. Someone more likely to ask questions that show they are aware of the world and our place in it.

Formats - making sure there's adequate time for answers AND rebuttals. Frankly, I'd prefer an old fashioned debate, like we learned in high school (except better obviously) with opening statements, supporting evidence and cross-ex.


What I'm really saying is I think it's a bit early in the debate process . Wait and see how they are going to play it.

He used the debate format to attack Clark because Michael Moore endorsed him. Almost all of the '04 debates were used by the media of all the networks to define the Democratic candidates and then carry those definitions forward in their following reports. No matter which channels carry the debates, their Corporate hairpieces should be bypassed and the questions should come from the voters. Those debates were phony and had no interest in informing the electorate.

Pelosi going to Syria was covered in a biased lying manner by all of the news "channels".

All of the networks helped us get into Iraq.

All of the networks slimed John Kerry and Al Gore.

All of the network/Cable channels are corporate interest owned by megalarge companies who have profited more via Republican administrations.

We can pick Fox out of the line up.....but they are all criminals.

The day that those who would remember the CNN 2003 DEM Sponsored Debates with Judy Woodgruff running all over the place thinking that she was "in" the debate while she manhandled everyone on the stage, is when we will be the better for it.

But it appears that until something happens that smacks the face of their chosen "candidate", folks will continue to believe that something is being accomplished by singling out one channel (all the while they will be watching American Idol, a Fox produced show), when in reality, it will only make the other biased channels appear that much more "credible".

The media is broken, and taking one spoke out of the wheel will not fix it.

If those who are so courageous leading the fight against Fox would speak up about media conglamoration as that is the real problem.......that would be a start.

It's like everyone talking about how many soldiers to have on the battlefield in Iraq, when the problem is not even a military one.

That said, however, I will say that although a bandaid is no cure, it's better than nothing at all....as long as we understand that it is just that....a bandaid.

I think not...

and aren't dependant on viewers
to garner advertising dollars.
But if they did have ratings they'd be pretty stinky.

Faux loves this "controversy" because it drives viewership...
they thrive on it.. it's their schtick... don't get sucked into it
and they will go away.

And they need to do it NOW, while we have a majority in congress....we've only got 19 months left before the republicans take it back.

....And they will do absolutely EVERYTHING in their power (which includes the UNREGULATED media -- the media is in the republican power machine) to take back congress, because their LIVES depend on it. Rove, and a great many other lawless republicans, very well may go to jail if he doesn't steal this next election for the republicans.

Rove & co. did NOT manage to cheat ENOUGH during the 2006 elections. They cheated the Dems out of 20 more seats (according to scientists who have evaluated the situation) than we WOULD have had, and Rove ALMOST managed to keep the Senate. He won't make that mistake next time.

The situation with the voting machines HAS NOT GONE AWAY!!! It requires a GREAT DEAL more work between now & 2008. It really scares me to see so many people relaxing on their laurels about that issue, because "after all, we won both houses of congress in 2006". That attitude is going to land us right back in hot water if we don't keep putting pressure on our state governments & election boards ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

If Congress NOW started taking action against the media by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, THEN we might get some better reporting about the voting machine issue before it's too late.

:kick::kick::kick:

This is the message of the boycott;
Dems are wimps, unwilling to face tough opposition.
Stand your ground and defend your positions.
It will win you more respect than any foolish boycott.

To make the big play, you've got to show up for the big game with your cleats on, not with a purseful of excuses.


Just what we need, another president who only speaks to fawning supporters!